Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Bushie and Harriet

By Mary Lynn F. Jones, AlterNet. Posted October 4, 2005.


Harriet Miers is an extremely loyal friend to President Bush. Is that enough to qualify her to sit on the Supreme Court?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Just hours before the Supreme Court began its new term on Monday with Chief Justice John Roberts at its helm, President Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, launching a confirmation fight over the court's critical swing seat.

In announcing his choice, Bush praised the 60-year-old Miers as a "pioneer in the field of law, breaking down barriers to women that remain ... a generation after President Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor to the Supreme Court."

Bush has under been pressure, including from first lady Laura Bush, to name a woman to succeed the court's first female justice since O'Connor announced her retirement in July. Last week, Bush hinted he might choose a woman by stating that "diversity is one of the strengths of the country." Miers's name soon emerged as a possible successor to O'Connor.

The timing of Miers's nomination is critical for several reasons. With the court's first oral arguments held Monday and O'Connor anxious to step down to care for her husband, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, the court may have to rehear cases on which it is split 4-4 after O'Connor leaves but before it issues an opinion. O'Connor has pledged to stay on the court until her successor is confirmed. When Justice Clarence Thomas succeeded Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1991, the court heard arguments again in two cases before handing down a decision.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said in a statement Monday that he would like the chamber to vote on Miers's nomination by Thanksgiving. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., appeared to back away from a specific date, however, saying, "To the extent we can meet a timetable we will, but thoroughness will be our principal goal."

Bush's announcement also comes as Republicans are anxious to push damaging headlines from the nation's front pages. Last week, Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, stepped down from his post as House majority leader after he was indicted on a criminal conspiracy charge related to campaign donations. This week, he was indicted on a second charge of money laundering. Federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission are looking into the questionable timing of a stock sale by Frist. In addition, New York Times reporter Judith Miller revealed publicly last week that Cheney Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby was her source in reporting on CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The president finds himself in a somewhat stronger position than when he nominated Roberts to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist on September 5. Then, Bush was battling public anger over the government's slow response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Bush took pains to appear more engaged personally as the Gulf Coast braced for Hurricane Rita.

Some Republicans greeted Miers's nomination enthusiastically. Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Ken Mehlman said Miers is "extraordinarily well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court." Frist called Miers "an outstanding nominee" who "understands the importance of judicial restraint and the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."

Frist also said he hopes senators can reach a decision on Miers "without probing into confidential and privileged documents." That means Miers's writings in the Bush White House -- as counsel, deputy chief of staff and staff secretary -- may be off-limits to committee members.

Others, however, said Bush missed a chance to move the court permanently rightward. RedState.org Founder and Director Mike Krempasky wrote Tuesday, "Mr. President, you've got some explaining to do. And please remember -- we've been defending you these five years because of this moment."

For their part, Senate Democrats responded cautiously, making clear they want to examine Miers' work both in Washington and in Texas, where she served as general counsel to Gov. Bush's 1994 transition team, as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission and as a private attorney. Because Miers has never served as a judge, she does not have a lengthy public paper trail.

Senate Judiciary Committee Member Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement Monday, "The record we have so far is simply insufficient to assess the qualifications of this nominee. While her resume lists impressive qualifications as a practicing attorney, it simply does not give the Senate -- or the public -- sufficient information to determine her qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice and her commitment to core constitutional values."

And in an apparent role reversal of their positions on Roberts -- who the Senate confirmed as the nation's 17th chief justice last week by a vote of 78 to 22 -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., seemed to praise Miers while Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., raised questions about her nomination.

Reid said he likes Miers, whom he called "courteous and professional," and noted that the court would benefit from the experience of someone who has been a practicing attorney. "A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the court," he said. Reid's words quickly appeared as part of an RNC release.

Leahy, who backed Roberts' nomination, said he does not know Miers well, having only met her recently. "What I do know," he added, "is that she has a reputation for being loyal to this president, whom she has a long history of serving as a close advisor and in working to advance his objectives. In an administration intent on accumulating executive power, Ms. Miers's views on and role in these issues will be important for the Senate to examine."

The challenge facing Democrats is how to oppose a nominee who Americans know little about. That's especially true for senators who are running for reelection next year in states Bush carried in 2004, such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bill Nelson of Florida, both of whom voted to confirm Roberts.

Democrats' best argument may be to raise the issue of favoritism in an administration under fire for installing Michael Brown as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency despite his lack of emergency management credentials. Brown was the college roommate of Bush friend Joe Albaugh, who preceded Brown in the job.

While conservatives wanted a candidate with a strong anti-abortion record, Miers doesn't appear to have one, at least at first glance. In 1992, Miers fought an American Bar Association resolution that would have supported abortion rights, although her opposition is said to have had more to do with the association taking a position on the issue than the position itself. And Miers, who is single, reportedly gave money during the 1988 election cycle to Al Gore, then-Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

It is unusual, but not unheard of, for a president to nominate a candidate with no experience as a judge. Rehnquist, for example, worked in the Justice Department under President Nixon, but never served as a judge.

Although Miers worked with senators in guiding Roberts' nomination through the confirmation process, she could face a tough road herself. That's because, unlike Roberts, she would succeed a justice who is the court's swing vote. In an interview that appeared last week in The Washington Post, DNC Chairman Howard Dean did not rule out the use of a filibuster. Miers appeared on Capitol Hill after her nomination Monday.

Much will depend on whether the so-called bipartisan "Gang of 14" senators decides that Miers trips the "extraordinary circumstances" clause of their agreement, which would allow senators to filibuster her nomination. Early reactions suggest that she, like Roberts, is not expected to be opposed by the group.

While initial reaction from some interest groups -- such as the conservative Family Research Council -- has been muted because of a lack of knowledge about Miers's record, organizations on both sides of the aisle are likely to be active given the importance of the nomination. "The next several months could determine the law of the land for the next several decades," Ralph G. Neas, president of the progressive People for the American Way, said in a statement Monday.

The group's vice president and legal director, Elliot Mincberg, said the nomination raises questions about whether Bush chose Miers based on friendship or because she is the most qualified person for the position. "The president knows a lot about how she thinks, what she thinks and what she believes," unlike senators or the public, he said, noting it is "too soon to tell" whether the group will launch television ads opposing her nomination.

Conservative groups were gearing up for a fight over Bush's second nominee even before the Senate confirmed Roberts. Progress for America said last week that it would launch a grassroots effort, including running television and radio ads, in 17 states to support Bush's associate justice candidate. The group has since launched the website justicemiers.com.

The White House consulted about 80 senators before naming O'Connor's successor, according to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "We have been listening to the views and ideas from members of the Senate," he said last week.

But Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who backed Roberts, disputed that idea in an interview last week.

"Well if you call a phone call from Karl Rove a consultation," he said. "Fun conversation, I like him, he's smart, we chatted. ... I made some recommendations and thoughts. He didn't tell me who they were thinking of, so it wasn't a two-way conversation in that regard."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Mary Lynn F. Jones is a Washington D.C.-based writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
adp3d
Posted by: adp3d on Oct 4, 2005 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand Ms. Miers has characterized G. W. Bush as being "...the smartest man I know...". That should speak volumes all by itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: adp3d Posted by: ohleslie
» RE: adp3d Posted by: tommat
Clarence Thomas in Drag
Posted by: Tom Degan on Oct 4, 2005 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure she's a nice lady but I just don't get it - not that I've ever "got" anything proposed by this president - but like Clarence Thomas, there's "just no THERE there". Could it be that as a White House council the little lady knows where the bodys are buried and Bush, his administration unravelling all around him and the inevitable indictments just around the corner, realizes this is payback time? Think about it. It'll probably be really difficult to supeona a former legal adviser if she's sitting on the Supreme Court. That could be the only explanation. Or could it be simply the fact that George W. Bush has this thing for mediocrities?

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clarence Thomas in Drag Posted by: shangrilalad
» RE: Clarence Thomas in Drag Posted by: radagast_23
» RE: Clarence Thomas in Drag Posted by: ccbite
Harriet Miers - a personal trial lawyer for Bush and a big aid to union busting in one.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 4, 2005 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole house of cards is gonna come tumbling down
Posted by: La Femme Nikita on Oct 4, 2005 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each day I read a new article on here or The Huffington Post or out in the blogosphere, I am ASTOUNDED at the amount of corruption in world politics. ASTOUNDED.
I asked my friends in the car on the way to church on Sunday morning if things had always been this bad, and they "oh sure there have always been scandals". Ok. What about worst administration ever? "Yep"
Now I don't know if things are hitting me harder because I am going through a divorce or what but things seem REAL BAD in global politics today REAL BAD...
I think impeachment is right...but we don't have the power to do that, do we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This group of jackals Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: This group of jackals Posted by: aonghus36
» Maybe if... Posted by: aonghus36
» But I am a member of the Green party! Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: This group of jackals Posted by: owleyes
» Bill Frist Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: Bill Frist Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Bill Frist Posted by: eastcoker
Such a cynical and corrupt process
Posted by: ccbite on Oct 4, 2005 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once the Bushies are out of power and the investigations begin to chip away at their abuses (and you know it will happen), how many times will this woman have to recuse herself because of conflict of interest?

And another thing: why shouldn't the burden of proof for hiring fall upon the candidate? Roberts didn't answer any questions and yet he was appointed. I don't get that!!!! So they nominate another under-the-radar prospect with the same expectation? What a corrupt process. And the democrats are just as much to blame by cutting deals behind closed doors and using precedent to excuse themselves from a thorough investigation. It's so cynical it makes me sick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Corrupt process is right! Posted by: La Femme Nikita
Bush Watcher
Posted by: susten88 on Oct 4, 2005 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just hope she doesn't know many men.. Bush smart ?? give me a break..If it was not for his dad and his cronies this guy would be pumping gas (at a pump) somewhere in Texas...smart ???!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cronie-ism?
Posted by: katyaa on Oct 4, 2005 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not just call it by it's true name - patronage. . . .The late Mayor Daley would be proud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush is smart
Posted by: gp on Oct 4, 2005 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I am far from being a fan of the Bush clan et al, I believe it is misguided to insist in thinking George W. Bush is not smart.

In fact, I think George Bush is very smart. He might not be an intellectual, able to recite Shakespeare from memory, and discuss the fine points of Plato's Republic. But he is smart enough to reconise talent and surround himself with it.

He has kept within close range evil geniuses like Karl Rove, Richard Cheney, Alberto González, and Harriet Miers, to name a few. He also has been smart enough to use people like Colin Powell, Joe Wilson (pre-Valerie Plame), to give his administration some credibility.

Pres. Bush is a very cunning, opportunistic politician who knows how to pick, use people, and get them to do his bidding for him. He is like a stealthy, skillful bird of prey. Underestimate him --or "misunderestimate" him-- at your own peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not smart, but conniving. Posted by: asoids
» George W. Bush needs to get arrested! Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» He is an alcoholic and a sociopath Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: Bush is smart Posted by: ccbite
» This is disturbing Posted by: La Femme Nikita
trappedintwilightzone
Posted by: trapped in twilight zone on Oct 4, 2005 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
gp is dead right (response to "Clarence Thomas in Drag"). No one enters the Bush inner sanctum without having first displayed absolute loyalty to him and the clan, as well as total agreement with their world view.

To think he would give a seat on the Supreme Court to someone who has not passed all his litmus tests is wishful thinking. And it is crucial that we not engage in wishful thinking. There is too much at stake here, not only for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren and who knows how many generations beyond.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wishful thinking is hard to overcome Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: trappedintwilightzone Posted by: blueneck
background?
Posted by: pacto on Oct 4, 2005 3:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was Harriet Miers the p residents council when he lied about WMDs,and the threat Iraq was to the U S.Was she part of the crew that pushed a war becaue of bushies agenda?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Background
Posted by: gp on Oct 4, 2005 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A quick google search delivered this profile on Harriet Miers: (excerpt)

"Miers came to Washington, D.C., in 2001:

* She was appointed assistant to the president and staff secretary on Jan. 20, 2001.

* In 2003, Miers was promoted to assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff.

* Miers has served as counsel to the president since February 2005."

It doesn't look like she was directly involved in the push for the invasion of Iraq, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that she probably has been very hard at work to find all the legal loopholes and technicalities that will shield Pres. Bush from any liability for the war and its many fallouts. So many, in fact, that I am having a hard time keeping track of them.

Personally, I think Ms. Miers' hard work will prove to be a waste of time: I don't see anybody in any future administration opening the Iraqi Pandora's Box. That would not be good for business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A very smart move by our president's handlers
Posted by: ejeder on Oct 4, 2005 7:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She has no paper trail, but you can be sure that after 10 years of working together, Bush knows how she feels about most issues. (See ya, Roe V. Wade) We also know how she'll vote if the Supreme Court has to decide any more stolen elections and I wonder if she'll even recuse herself from trying any future Bush-administration corruption cases... come to think of it, there will probably never be any because this regime tightens its grip on power more and more every day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

when did Bush become born again?
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Oct 4, 2005 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There has always been this little thought that bush was born again to become Governor of Texas and then on to the presidency. I think Karl Rove outlined this whole thing. That may seem wrong, but George does not strike me as a real born again Christian. If he was he would give them a candidate with a proven track record on Roe v Wade. He just give lip-service to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speculation: Could be Blackmail?
Posted by: CatDad on Oct 4, 2005 9:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a curious choice for a down and out president. I am speculating here…

During the 1960 Dem. VeepStakes…pundits were stunned by the unlikely selection of LBJ as Kennedy’s running mate…it simply didn’t make sense. It has been alleged that LBJ had access to very damaging information about JFK’s now well known sexual proclivities…the allegation is that LBJ threatened disclosure if he wasn’t selected as VP.

Now, we have a viciously ambitious attorney/nominee for the Supreme Court…a woman whose only qualification is that she has embedded herself with the Bushevick Dynasty. This woman probably knows all the inside dirt, including the details of Bush’s very special treatment during his Private Benjamin years in the National Guard. (“I joined a different Army…the one’s with the seaside condos.”)

Could this be a similar situation as with LBJ…a person with the scoop on all the dirt who uses it for political advancement? In this case advancement all the way to the Supreme Court? Bush himself called her a “pit-bull in size six shoes.” If not, it’s a breathtaking act of cronyism and a cynical slap in the face to the social conservatives whom he used, then discarded to win elections. If it’s the later I think it’s because W’s changed his mind and he’s now chosen Jack Daniels over Laura.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your President does it again!
Posted by: slveasley20@hotmail.com on Oct 11, 2005 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, this is just another example of how our President does whatever he wants and continues to ignore the wants, needs, and rights of our society.
I'm all for Ms. Laura Bush's idea of having a woman as Supreme Court justice, but is it really okay to nominate someone just because you happen to "be cool" with them rather than because they are ACTUALLY the best person for the job? Is she qualified? Despite her notariety as an attorney, she's never even been a judge. That's a big hop, skip, and jump into the Supreme Court, don't you think? How does she feel about issues that we all must face personally, or that someone in our lives are facing? She can be Bush's best friend all day but I don't personally know this woman, but she's apart of my governement. Don't I have a right to know more about her? Affirmative Action, Abortion, etc., all of these DO have the potential to change society, therefore I feel as though the public SHOULD have a right to know more about her. Just because she is a woman and we need more females in office does not make it okay for her to just be put in as Supreme COurt Justice. What's going on with our government? Is anything that we're told real now? Does the public have ANY rights anymore?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it's a smokescreen
Posted by: lindalee on Oct 14, 2005 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may be paranoid but I think the Republicans questioning of Meiers is a ruse, a smokescreen.....a big damned fake. She's a fundamentalist and will do everything that they want. She'll also protect their asses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement